1877 Cent video by Rick Snow 1 1

[RWB]

The following is a link to a video by Rick Snow concerning 1877 cents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY5cSnU_SwU.

Note that near the end Rick mentions an apparent discrepancy between the reported mintage of about 800,000 and the only 2 reverse dies were used in 1877. The following, which I have sent to Rick, will correct the problem. There were 2 new reverse dies for 1877 plus 4 1876 reverse dies carried forward. Thus, the total number of reverse dies used in 1877 was 6, not 2. This is in line with typical contemporary one-cent coin die life.

 

 

[RWB]

In turn, 4 reverse dies were carried forward to 1878, but we don't know which ones or how much they had previously been used.

Edited November 22, 2021 by RWB

[Conder101]

These show that there were 6 rev dies available, and that 4 rev were retained for use in 1878.  Snow says that only one reverse has been identified as having been used  for the business strikes and two obv dies.  Could the second reverse and third obv die used have been the dies used for the proof coins?  He is right that two obv and one rev is really too few for a mintage of 852,000 coins.  If they were used for that many there should be a LOT of 1877 cents with the dies showing severe die wear.  I can't recall ever seeing one that showed such severe wear.

[RWB]

I suspect that at least 5 of the 6 were used in 1877; however, I also suspect that the sample of 1877 cents for which a specific reverse die can be identified to much too small to be statistically meaningful. That is, more than one rev die could be identified if we had a larger sample of coins, in high enough grade, to detect the small differences between one die and another.

Another detail is that these are dies destroyed, with a few exceptions including 4 cent reverses. One of these reverse dies might have been a proof die. Also, there were 3 obverse dies destroyed, presumably including the proof obverse.

Unlike most other years, this report does not break out proof coin dies. It's possible another letter includes that information, but it hasn't been found as yet.

[Henri Charriere]

[nota bene:  the term "business" strike as used in this column in referring to a specific interval in numismatic history, is a misnomer having been invented, or introduced for use by an apparently influential faction of the burgeoning coin-industrial-complex, during the latter part of the twentieth century, some one hundred years, hence.  The correct and only term used during the period under discussion here is "circulation" strike.]

[RWB]

On 11/25/2021 at 6:46 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

[nota bene:  the term "business" strike as used in this column in referring to a specific interval in numismatic history, is a misnomer having been invented, or introduced for use by an apparently influential faction of the burgeoning coin-industrial-complex, during the latter part of the twentieth century, some one hundred years, hence.  The correct and only term used during the period under discussion here is "circulation" strike.]

Thanks you! Yep. ALL coin and medal strikes are part of the Mint's "business." Just as we say "proof coin" we should also differentiate by saying "circulation coin" or similar. That conveys more accurate information about the coin or medal.

[Conder101]

On 11/24/2021 at 1:06 AM, RWB said:

I suspect that at least 5 of the 6 were used in 1877; however, I also suspect that the sample of 1877 cents for which a specific reverse die can be identified to much too small to be statistically meaningful. That is, more than one rev die could be identified if we had a larger sample of coins, in high enough grade, to detect the small differences between one die and another.

One problem with the idea of five dies being used in an oddity of the 1877 reverse.  The mint introduced a new rev hub in 1870 replacing the older "shallow N" rev.  There are some coins from shallow N hubbed dies in 1871 and 1872 but then no more.. That is until 1877.  Every 1877 circulation strike cent is from a shallow N hubbed die.  It seems unlikely that no cents would be struck from shallow N dies for five years and then suddenly five shallow N dies would be used in 1877, and none of the retained rev dies would be  shallow N dies. There are no shallow N cents after 1877. (The proof 1877 cents were from the new rev hub)

[Henri Charriere]

[Begging @RWB's indulgence, I must say the breadth of your knowledge is astounding, Mighty Condor!  All I know about the '77 is it's rare, and I've never owned one.  A source on Google pegs the survival rate at 5,000. And, if what you say is true, that shallow feature inadvertently functions as an anti-counterfeiting measure. Great thread @RWB !]

[RWB]

On 11/25/2021 at 10:29 PM, Conder101 said:

One problem with the idea of five dies being used in an oddity of the 1877 reverse.  The mint introduced a new rev hub in 1870 replacing the older "shallow N" rev.  There are some coins from shallow N hubbed dies in 1871 and 1872 but then no more.. That is until 1877.  Every 1877 circulation strike cent is from a shallow N hubbed die.  It seems unlikely that no cents would be struck from shallow N dies for five years and then suddenly five shallow N dies would be used in 1877, and none of the retained rev dies would be  shallow N dies. There are no shallow N cents after 1877. (The proof 1877 cents were from the new rev hub)

Prior to 1882 the mints routinely carried a stock of old dies, primarily reverses. These were used indiscriminately as needed. Thus, reappearance of an obsolete version - in this case with a "shallow N" - no longer becomes so much of an oddity. (See my post "Explanation for handling and reissue of reverse dies" and the letter from Dir. Burchard.)

That all 1877 cent reverses observed are from the same hub, does not mean that all are from the same reverse die. Using the limited data on cent die life, it is improbable, as Mr. Snow notes, that all the cents of that year used the same reverse die. No discrepancies in production data are evident, so we have to then take a better look at the supposed die use.

[DWLange]

Quote

Thanks you! Yep. ALL coin and medal strikes are part of the Mint's "business." Just as we say "proof coin" we should also differentiate by saying "circulation coin" or similar. That conveys more accurate information about the coin or medal.

In my writing I use the term "currency strike," which conveys the purpose of the coin without implying that it is circulated or uncirculated.

[RWB]

On 11/26/2021 at 10:23 AM, DWLange said:

In my writing I use the term "currency strike," which conveys the purpose of the coin without implying that it is circulated or uncirculated.

That works, too. "Business strike" is evidently another Breen-ism that deserves to be tossed in the trash bin along with "Roman proof" and other rubbish.

[RWB]

Here are three indian cents. Select the 1877 coin.

[Henri Charriere]

VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED...  for any member or lurker out there who is stricken with the compulsion to counter the term "currency" as hereinabove used and validated, you will be in for a rude awakening if you consult Google.

My idea of currency is the same as yours: paper money, banknotes, greenbacks sawbucks, scratch, etc. Not so!  One gem I encountered is the epitome of circular reasoning using the term currency, to define it:

"Currency refers to a promissory note or a coin that is presented in the form of currency." (emphasis mine.) And further investigation will only cause you to be hopelessly mired in the slippery slope of INR, rupees, paisa, as well as a colorful display of international banknotes, both obsolete and current.

One day you wake up, at age 70, and discover something you thought you knew all along and took for granted is common knowledge, only to find out you were wrong.   🐓 

 

[Henri Charriere]

On 11/26/2021 at 11:55 AM, RWB said:

Here are three indian cents. Select the 1877 coin.

Hmm, snuck this by me. I deem this to be a trick question. I do not recall reading anyone stating every 1877 featured that diagnostic anomaly.  All three may very well be 1877's. That's my call and I stake my [tattered] reputation on it, unequivocally.  🐓 

[RWB]

On 11/25/2021 at 10:29 PM, Conder101 said:

Every 1877 circulation strike cent is from a shallow N hubbed die. 

The illustration coins were selected at random - mostly similar color - all are dated in the 1870s per the 1870 hub mentioned by Conder101.

[Henri Charriere]

On 11/26/2021 at 3:07 PM, RWB said:

The illustration coins were selected at random - mostly similar color - all are dated in the 1870s per the 1870 hub mentioned by Conder101.

The most remarkable thing about those three coins is the fact you had them at your beck and call, and were able to produce them immediately, to illustrate a point. Will wonders never cease?

 

[Conder101]

If none are proofs (which I would possibly have difficulty recognizing), then the first one is the 1877.  If the third one is proof then it could be a 77.

[RWB]

On 11/26/2021 at 5:59 PM, Conder101 said:

If none are proofs (which I would possibly have difficulty recognizing), then the first one is the 1877.  If the third one is proof then it could be a 77.

#1 and #3 are 1877. #2 is 1876.

Yes, #3 is a proof.

After looking a most of the Heritage 1877 lots plus some from 1871 and 1872, Weakness affects both "Ns" and the "E" of cent; a clearer descriptive term is "weak center" or maybe "shallow center." I feel it's likely the hub was defective: partially collapsed in the center. There also appear (appear !) to be several bins of this defect indicating either multiple dies or degradation. The photos are not uniform. Given the mintage, I favor multiple dies with differences attributable to stages of collapse of the hub.

In other words: It seems likely that several reverse dies were used in 1877, all from the same hub but at differing degrees of defect. This could be established and checked by: 1) comparing 1877s with "shallow N" of previous dates; and 2) examining 1877s for small die differences not related to the central reverse. The actual reverse working dies might have been made much earlier. For example, here's an 1869 cent reverse that shows some of the characteristics of image #1 (most pronounced in the "Ns"), but possibly an earlier stage of hub collapse.

[Conder101]

But the proof IS from a different hub (The post 1870 hub).  Note the differences in the serifs especially on the N and the different spacing between the NE and CE.  The "weak N" isn't the only difference between the hubs.

[Henri Charriere]

Deleted.

Edited December 1, 2021 by Quintus Arrius
No Comment.

[RWB]

...And what would be the purpose of falsifying cent production for 1877 - only 1877 - and also buying blanks to support that quantity? The Mint made considerable profit on cents. To falsify production means to have falsified ALL 1877 profit from cents, and in aggregate, from all minor coinage.

I've looked back and found 1868 cents from the same hub but with and without the "shallow N."  A little article about Burchard's letter is in preparation and includes comments about 1877 cents and the theory of partial collapse of the hub center. So far, all "sunken N" coins have reverse dies made from the same hub.